[News] Kings terminate Richards contract. UPD: Kings and Richards reach settlement

[Benched]

I've been busted with bringing back too much alcohol. We had to pay duty on it...that's it.

It's not a huge deal.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by Weitz

If you get busted with too much tobacco or Alcohol you simply pay the duty and continue on.

Citation.
A Professional Edmontonian weighs in.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Hmmm that is not true... You get a pretty hefty fine, and the officer has the ability to ban you from the country for up to 1 year.

Canada doesn't ban Canadian citizens from Canada. And unless you are talking like $1000's of dollars of loot, they just make you pay the duty....

I know from personal experience haha.

I guess he could have been taking it to the USA, but that just seems silly since its so much cheaper there.

[Benched]

oh PS. if you don't want to pay the duty on it...or can't, or w/e, then you surrender it. The border guards I talked to said most people choose to do that.

My guess is either they have killer staff parties, or it goes into some government holding.


But really, it's no big deal.

[ToraToraTora]

Originally Posted by Benched

I've been busted with bringing back too much alcohol. We had to pay duty on it...that's it.

It's not a huge deal.

Except if you lie. Then you're screwed.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Hmmm that is not true... You get a pretty hefty fine, and the officer has the ability to make future visits to the border a huge PITA.

I know someone who cannot get some type of approval in the USA, because this person was with several others who lied on their customs declaration forms on a quick trip over the border (this person didn't lie, the friends did and essentially screwed by association). I believe it expires in 4 years or something though.

EDIT: I remember now. This person is not allowed a nexus card because of this situation, but the "window" reopens in 2 since of the 4 years ban on apply for one.

So yes, a huge PITA, but how bad must it have been for Richards if it allows a contract termination?

[Benched]

Originally Posted by ToraToraTora

Except if you lie. Then you're screwed.

You can lie to them, and to the custom guys at the airport.

If/when they catch you then you're basically flagged and expect a hassle every time you cross the border. They'll give you ####, and maybe hit you with a fine, but aside from that as long as you're not smuggling something in illegally, this is some petty stuff.

So yeah, lying is bad. But again, it's not RCMP investigation material, or millions of dollars in contract -breachy material.

[Benched]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

I know someone who cannot get some type of approval in the USA, because this person was with several others who lied on their customs declaration forms on a quick trip over the border (this person didn't lie, the friends did and essentially screwed by association). I believe it expires in 4 years or something though.

EDIT: I remember now. This person is not allowed a nexus card because of this situation, but the "window" reopens in 2 since of the 4 years ban on apply for one.

So yes, a huge PITA, but how bad must it have been for Richards if it allows a contract termination?

Nexus is a whole nother thing. When you're on Nexus you better live the clean life. Messing up even the smallest offense has serious repercussions. It's a very strict system, hence the ease they coast through customs.

[Envitro]

Correct on Nexus.
My wife and I have it and we declare everything so that they can never have anything on us, and so that we don't get it revoked. It's super convenient for travelling into the U.S. so why lose that?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

If Richards has broken the terms the team wrote into the contract (potentially an added clause when they were considering a compliance buyout) and Richards broke this clause, why is everyone so up in arms over the voided contract?

The argument is basically the "We don't like LA, so they should be unjustly punished and be stuck with the contract"

This is an employment contract. This is REAL $$$ ( and a lot of it) to Richards. You can bet he will fight this if he has any legs to stand on. If he did break the terms of his legal employment contract, then LA should be able to void his contract.


It really doesn't to me. They were in trade talks with teams. They informed those teams an issue has come up. Richards has not made any public statement despite the fact this will cost him millions AND a chance at FA tomorrow when he would have been bought out.

It sounds like a player with a questionable past, who was given 1 last chance with LA, screwing up.

But the entire point of the discussion is what did he do to allow for the contract to be voided? NHL contracts are guaranteed and LA is relying on a "material breach". This just doesn't happen everyday and is a far cry from a "regular" employment contract where it is fairly common to either rely on a breach (failed drug test, for example), or simply pay in lieu of notice.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

But the entire point of the discussion is what did he do to allow for the contract to be voided? NHL contracts are guaranteed and LA is relying on a "material breach". This just doesn't happen everyday and is a far cry from a "regular" employment contract where it is fairly common to either rely on a breach (failed drug test, for example), or simply pay in lieu of notice.

I don't know why you think that. Regular employment contracts are "guaranteed" to the extent you don't break them. In almost any situation at a job you can't be fired for a first offence. In fact it is quite difficult to fire someone.

If Richards did something to break his contract, reaching "material breach" status, then the Kings have the rights in the world to void it.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I don't know why you think that. Regular employment contracts are "guaranteed" to the extent you don't break them. In almost any situation at a job you can't be fired for a first offence. In fact it is quite difficult to fire someone.

If Richards did something to break his contract, reaching "material breach" status, then the Kings have the rights in the world to void it.

The point is that the NHL contracts are part of the collective bargaining agreement. LA seem to be really reaching here, by alleging a material breach. I would be interested in hearing if that ever has been used in the NHL. I doubt it, and plenty of crappy things have been done by plenty of crappy individuals.

Regular (non-union) contracts are not guaranteed. An employer can fire someone with cause (no notice or pay in lieu of notice) or without cause (pay in lieu of notice). It just doesn't work that way in the NHL.

Edit: It is not difficult to fire someone outside of a union situation. Just look at the "Layoffs in the oilpatch" thread for proof.

[Jason14h]

The point is that the NHL contracts are part of the collective bargaining agreement. LA seem to be really reaching here, by alleging a material breach

We don't know that they are reaching. And the NHL seems to agree with them. So hardly a reach from the information that we actually have present.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

We don't know that they are reaching. And the NHL seems to agree with them. So hardly a reach from the information that we actually have present.

I wouldn't read too much into that because if the NHL and it's owners had their way all contracts would be non-guaranteed like the NFL so it's no surprise they aren't going to stand in opposition to the Kings on this.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Not enough information for sure. I just think it should be noted that "material breach" is something that goes to the heart of the contract. Getting busted at a border crossing doesn't sound to me that it would count, assuming he wasn't trying to smuggle the escaped prisoners across the border (and even then, I am not so sure).

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

The point is that the NHL contracts are part of the collective bargaining agreement. LA seem to be really reaching here, by alleging a material breach. I would be interested in hearing if that ever has been used in the NHL. I doubt it, and plenty of crappy things have been done by plenty of crappy individuals.

Regular (non-union) contracts are not guaranteed. An employer can fire someone with cause (no notice or pay in lieu of notice) or without cause (pay in lieu of notice). It just doesn't work that way in the NHL.

Edit: It is not difficult to fire someone outside of a union situation. Just look at the "Layoffs in the oilpatch" thread for proof.

Talking about firing people and then citing a layoff thread is very weak. Layoffs require compensation, same with unjustified firings (if it could even withstand a lawsuit).

Obviously the Kings feel Richards BROKE the contract which would allow them to "fire" Richards with cause. The contract being "guaranteed" is moot if the terms of the contract are broken.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by united

If we're into speculation and RCMP/border services is involved...even something like chewing tobacco. In junior rookies' bags get filled with logs during the swings to the US teams or some teams filled the hollow part of seats below the cushions on the bus with logs. Now you wouldn't think a guy who has made tens of millions in his career would care about saving $20 a tin, but if he was with some average Joe buddies they would. He has a nice fishing boat so you could fit a bunch in the livewell.

Logs = turds?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Talking about firing people and then citing a layoff thread is very weak. Layoffs require compensation, same with unjustified firings (if it could even withstand a lawsuit).

Obviously the Kings feel Richards BROKE the contract which would allow them to "fire" Richards with cause. The contract being "guaranteed" is moot if the terms of the contract are broken.

You stated that it was difficult to fire someone. It isn't. There is no such thing as "unjustified" firings, you just need to provide notice or compensation in lieu of notice, which I stated in my post.

No doubt the Kings think they have the right to terminate the contract, but to my knowledge an alleged breach of this clause has never been used. It is going to need be something really, really big and almost certainly something bigger than getting busted at the border for guns or weed, which have been suggested.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Benched

Nexus is a whole nother thing. When you're on Nexus you better live the clean life. Messing up even the smallest offense has serious repercussions. It's a very strict system, hence the ease they coast through customs.

[polak]

My dad got caught trying to bring across a sound system worth a few hundred bucks without declaring it and got busted and didn't have any other repercussions besides having to pay the duty.

I once had too many smokes and just fessed up to it and they didn't do anything. Didn't even pull me to the side.